See changeset/170683167

Thanks - I've re-added it to the relation so that http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=13159639&noCache=true&_noCache=on and http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=13159639 look OK too.

Hi Jim,
Any more thoughts? You have an email from the DWG (sent 06/08/2025 11:18) - just reply to that and it'll go on the ticket.
We do need to do something here to guard against someone re-adding without difficulty information.
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

Hello,
Does the "Severn Way Source" route run along the edge of the island now?
relation/13159639#map=17/52.714283/-2.755907
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Just to let you know, although Bing imagery still shows the golf course, the Esri imagery in the area (available in iD) shows the new layout.
Best Regards,
Andy

Ah - no: way/1220642957/history
My mistake!

Thanks - I'd suggest that if you know where there's signage on the "proposed" relation it's worth you moving it to the other one.

Thanks!

Hello,
I'm guessing that "community_centre=club_home" on node/7197451069 might be a typo, but what for?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,

> everything marked as being accessible by foot seems to be showing up looking like a regular footpath on apps

On which apps are you seeing problematical data displayed?

It'd be great to have more details so that we can investigate.

> I heard back from one app saying that they didn't believe it was their responsibility to fix it themselves

.. especially details of that app! At the very least they need to educate their helpdesk.

Best Regards,
Andy

Hello James, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. This change has been flagged to us because it has a lot of deletions in it.
After looking at it, I'm worried that some of the changes here will have the opposite effect to the one that you desire.
An example, way/1307126023/history was mapped before as sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking . Just deleting it might mean that someone might add it back without those tags, meaning that it could show up in hiking apps designed for regular tourists, misleading them into attempting something that they should not.
If it genuinely doesn't exist as any sort of path (but might be visible on old out of copyright maps or imagery) other tags would be better - perhaps "disused:highway". If it does exist but is beyond anything normally tagged in OSM as "path", then again some other tag (perhaps "scramble"?) might be better.
I'd also suggest discussing it with the wider community in the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/communities/uk/86/scotland - you can login there with your regular OSM account.
Best Regards,
Andy

Includes one bike route guidepost in York

I wonder if that got saved? I still see both spurs at relation/5422375#map=16/50.62383/-4.20835 ?

@Constrado - I think you need to apologise to to the Polish community for the way that you've been behaving.
I would suggest that you need to do that before doing anything else.

Have you discussed this edit with the Polish community? The elevation of the road class here isn't in line with my recollection of previous discussions.

Hello,
Currently there is relation/2941541 (not proposed) and relation/5868477 (proposed) - if some of the bits around Porthcawl are now signed should they be moved to the other relation?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just wondered - is the extra spur northeast of Chillaton deliberate?
https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5422375
Best Regards,
Andy